This study compared the perceptions of members of the Virginia Senate to those of Virginia community college presidents concerning the importance of state funding of 14 community college goal areas clustered from 31 activity statements. The study sought to determine what differences existed between the two groups concerning these goals and the priorities of the two groups for funding the goals. The study also examined the effects of the urban/rural nature of a respondent’s district or service region, the length of time as a legislator or president, the geographic location of a senator’s district, political affiliation of a senator, and the size of a president’s institution on the degree of importance for funding the goals. The study found that presidents rated all goal areas higher than did senators. Both senators and presidents agreed that 13 of the 14 goal areas were important for funding. Of these 13, however, there were statistically significant differences for 7 goal areas. Senators and presidents both disagreed that the remaining goal area was important for state funding; the difference was statistically significant. Only 2 of the goal areas showed significant differences between urban and rural respondents. Of the 31 activity statements, presidents and senators both agreed that 24 were important for state funding. On 5 of the activities senators disagreed with the importance for state funding while presidents agreed. Both senators and presidents disagreed with the importance of funding two activities. Other variables showed little effect on the responses. The rankings of goal areas and activity statements by senators and presidents showed a high positive correlation indicating congruence between the priorities for funding of the two groups. The study concluded that there is much agreement and congruence between senators and presidents concerning goals for Virginia’s community colleges, with greatest support for occupational/technical, developmental studies, and transfer programs. / Ed. D.

Today's community colleges are challenged to respond to rapidly changing internal and external environments. Their responses must promote highly responsive and relevant programs and services, while keeping intact the strengths of community colleges--access, student success, and a focus on teaching and learning. Further, these responses must occur in the context of rising costs, decreasing revenues, and increased accountability. Accrediting agencies are requiring colleges to more effectively respond to change by implementing improved planning processes. The research literature on higher education planning suggests faculty are a key constituency to engage in planning efforts. However, little is written about actual faculty experiences in planning. This qualitative study was conducted to provide increased understanding of how faculty at a large, suburban California community college experienced developing discipline specific educational master plans (EMPs) in Spring 2001. Using interactive qualitative analysis methodology, a seven-member faculty focus group first identified the affinities (or themes) of their planning experience. These affinities were used to develop interview questions for another 14 faculty members. The 21 faculty participants were from a total of nine different instructional areas, and had been identified as lead EMP contacts for their disciplines. Following its collection, the data was analyzed to generate grounded theory about the faculty EMP experience. The "Faculty EMP Experience Systems Theory" revealed the primary driver of the faculty experience was their belief eligibility for future resources for their disciplines was tied directly to their EMPs. This was followed by secondary drivers of their past experiences with planning at the college, and the resources they were given, or accessed, to complete their plans. Together, these three drivers directly influenced how the planning work was done. The secondary outcomes of the faculty experience developing EMPs included interpersonal effects of engaging in the EMP process, and unanswered questions about what the administration would actually do with their EMP work. Finally, the primary outcomes of the faculty experience were their evaluation of the EMP processes and products (plans), and the frustrations, if any, they experienced. This new theory suggests implications for practice and further research. / Graduation date: 2003